FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1954
1954 - 1396.PDF
FLIGHT, 14 May 1954 617 SLOW PROGRESS AT STRASBOURG Preliminary Report on the European Air Transport Conference THE leading article in Flight of April 30th drew attention to the meeting convened at Strasbourg by the Inter national Civil Aviation Organization, at the initial suggestion of the Council of Europe, to discuss possible means of co-ordinating European air transport. The con ference opened on April 21st and was expected to conclude by last week-end. This first-hand report of the conference was prepared before the close of discussions, so no final conclusions are attempted. It does show, however, a wide divergence of outlook on the part of the 22 nations taking part and, more discouraging, lack of understanding of the elemental principles of international air traffic on the part of some delegates. Later news appears on page 625. The conference has been working in four committees: Economic Committee No. 1, to discuss exchange of traffic rights for scheduled and non-scheduled services; Economic Committee No. 2, to dis cuss interchange of aircraft and to exchange views on helicopter development; the Facilitation Committee, to examine measures necessary to achieve the maximum degree of facilitation within Europe; and the Technical Committee, to consider existing air navigation facilities in Europe with a view to reporting on defi- ciences which are having an adverse effect on economics. The crux of the whole conference lies in the question of the exchange of traffic rights and it is on this factor that there has been the most concentration. The Economic Committee got down to the meat of the problem with commendable speed and, throughout the conference, worked extremely hard in attempts to find solutions which would improve the economic operation of European air transport. At the commencement of the conference, the Scandinavian delegation submitted a resolution which suggested that appropriate action be taken to establish for a trial period of five years a multi lateral agreement granting the Five Freedoms to European operators within Europe. They added that a variety of safe guards could be introduced against excessive competition and to ensure fair and equal opportunity for the airlines of each par ticipating country. Under questioning, however, they admitted that they had no specific proposals as to implementation. Their resolution received a large amount of initial support, but it was generally agreed that the main difficulties in the past which had prevented a Five-Freedom multilateral agreement were those provisions which, in the present proposals, were left for further study. United Kingdom's Views.—Sir George Cribbett, the leader of the United Kingdom's delegation, at the opening stage of the meeting, made a general statement on British views as to the aims of the conference. He said that, after examining all the evidence, the U.K. did not consider that the present competitive system should be replaced by any other, fundamentally different, system, although they believed that certain modifications were desirable. They urged that there should be no hurried or ill- considered actions aimed at achievement for achievement's sake. They also considered that too much emphasis should not be placed on comparisons with operations in the United States; it must be recognized the European problems had no exact parallel in the United States. To emphasize this, Sir George pointed out that the income level of the people of Europe did not permit traffic comparable with that of America, and seasonal fluctuations presented a greater factor. The traffic potential of the United States was ten times that of Europe, where the problem was aggravated by the fact that the large industrial areas were situated fairly closely together. In addition, the United States was a single economic unit with one language. The United Kingdom followed this general statement two days later by presenting its detailed proposals to the conference. In a preamble, the U.K. stated that it appeared that the Scan dinavian proposals for a multilateral agreement had been based principally on the restrictions imposed by certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements, although the Scandinavians had admitted that these restrictions were not of a very serious nature. It was the U.K. view, however, that the more sensitive reflections of national policies of the various countries in the bilateral agree ments might be preferable to a multilateral agreement which, to safeguard certain rights, might prove more restrictive. The U.K. added that it found from the report of the Air Research Bureau that, in Europe, certain routes were adequately, or more than adequately, supplied with capacity to meet public need; other routes had a capacity or frequency too low to meet public needs; and others, again, scarcely justified a service at all. It was felt, therefore, that there was no justification for the wide liberalization suggested by the Scandinavian delegations; it might well substitute cut-throat competition for orderly development. The U.K. therefore submitted its proposals for the rationaliza tion of European air transport, which were: (1) retention of the present bilateral system within its main framework; (2) removal by multilateral agreement of the distinction between Third, Fourth and Fifth Freedoms and the treatment of all traffic under those heads as international traffic without freedom distinction; (3) elimination from the bilateral agreements of those capacity provisions which were specifically related to the classification of traffic by the Third, Fourth and Fifth Freedoms; (4) insertion, or retention, in bilateral agreements of provisions to make capa city offered by competing airlines subject to the over-riding condition that it shall not be in excess of the requirements of the traffic; (5) insertion, or retention, of a provision that there should be fair, equal opportunity to compete so long as the operations of one competitor did not unduly effect those of the reciprocal operator under a bilateral agreement. It was also proposed that intra-European all-freight should be given more latitude than even these measures afforded and should be free to operate where the traffic offered. As regards non-scheduled operations, the U.K. urged that these should be subject to a very liberal policy, to permit their full development. At this stage there were, therefore, three broad views: the extreme liberal view that there should be a Five-Freedom multi lateral agreement (proposed by Scandinavia); the view that liberalization would need planning and co-ordination by a con sultative body of some kind (submitted by Italy); and the view that advance towards multilateralism could best be achieved by study and co-ordination of bilateral agreements (the U.K. view). The U.K. proposals were immediately supported "in principle" by Germany and Spain, but Spain deviated somewhat from this position at a later stage. Most of the States represented at the conference did not commit themselves clearly to any of the three points of view; but it became obvious, from the general attitude of all States, that the basic principles on which the conference was based were not likely to be achieved. Debate on the U.K. Views.—The discussion on the British proposals took three full days and consisted principally of ques tions for clarification. At this point, it might be stated that Sir George Cribbett earned the respect of all present for his very deep understanding of all aspects of international air transport. During this very intensive questioning period, his answers were detailed, clear and to the point. It is a pity that the same cannot be said of the majority of the delegates present; some even appeared to have practically no understanding of the problem at all. In general, the subject appeared to be too complex and technical for the majority of delegates, but, on the other hand, these attitudes might have been adopted as safeguards against direct commitment. There was no real doubt that almost every State was adopting a policy which was dictated by (a) its geo graphic position in Europe, (b) its traffic potential and (c) its relative air strength. During the discussion on the U.K. proposals, the French (sup ported by the Netherlands) submitted the view that most of the problems could be solved by means of interchanges of routes. As an example, the route Stockholm-Paris-Madrid was quoted, which would involve three governments and three airlines. In the present bilateral network, this implied negotiation between three pairs. If interchange of routes were agreed, however, and the three carriers considered it economically practical, there would be a single agreement between the three governments which would permit all three carriers to operate the full route with Fifth Freedom rights at Paris. This proposal, although considered as a practical measure if the carriers wished to take such action, was generally declared to be a minor solution which would probably only result in any interest in one or two instances. Despite this, the French have continued to push this proposal as a major matter, but the Netherlands have conceded that it is only a partial solution. There would be many bilateral disturbances; and the U.K. pro posals, in particular, emphasize no disturbance in the present bilateral system apart from the removal of the Fifth Freedom distinction. The problem of Fifth Freedom rights has, in fact, been the major stumbling-block to progress, although it has been pointed out that the problem is steadily diminishing with the increase in the number of single-stage services in Europe. Although the Scandinavian proposals were modified to allow
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
